Netflix loses 1,794 videos from its streaming catalog

Warner Bros, MGM, and Universal content will depart from Netflix.

An expiring contract for Netflix means the streaming video service will lose 1,794 pieces of content, according to Mashable. Netflix’s agreement with Warner Bros., MGM, and Universal expired Wednesday, meaning customers will lose the ability to watch such morsels as Cruel Intentions and Big Daddy.

The contents of Netflix’s instant streaming catalog wax and wane all the time, but it’s rare that there is such a mass exodus from the service. Starz let its own contract with Netflix expire in February 2012, which resulted in the loss of titles like Amélie and around a thousand others.

Warner Bros. has started its own streaming service, WB Archive Instant, which is priced at $9.99 per month. If the service’s best offerings are placed front and center on the home page, shown above, we’re not entirely sold.

Netflix contacted Mashable to state that it prefers to license TV shows and movies “on an exclusive basis… [to] provide a unique experience” and emphasized that the goal of the service is to be an “expert programmer” rather than a “broad distributor.”

Netflix has expressed the possibility that Viacom Networks’ deal may also be allowed to expire. As it is, several Viacom-owned shows, including Chappelle’s Show, The Hills, Jersey Shore, Invader Zim, Angry Beavers, Ren and Stimpy, and Reno 911 are set to disappear from Netflix by May 22, according to InstantWatcher.

UPDATE: The Warner Archive has tweeted the following statement: "We aren't involved in Netflix’s business decisions & our content is drawn solely from WB's library & aren't streaming Universal/MGM content." The service asserted in another tweet directed at at fellow Twitter user that, "Just FYI, Warner Archive Instant has nothing to do with Netflix expirations and we are not adding these titles."

Promoted Comments

1. Warner Bros. is nuts if they think I'm paying $9.99/month just for their movies/shows. I'm am *not* going to shell out who-knows-how-many subscriptions to every movie house.

2. Netflix is nuts if they think I'm going to shell out a subscription just for their "exclusive" shows. I joined because they were the "Steam" of movies and made life easier when it came to renting what I wanted when I wanted. The streaming part was a nice add-on, but not a necessity.

I'm not going to sign up for a dozen different streaming services just to have access to the content of each publisher's library. And if I want to watch a movie, do they think I'm going to like having to Google the movie to find out it's publisher first and then go and log into that service to watch it?

I like Netflix because it's cheap and has a wide selection. Maybe the big studios can all pull out and kill Netflix, but I'm not trading my $8/month Netflix for a dozen $10/month services.

It's always the same with the media companies, they want to keep prices high and access limited. They just don't get how the internet works. I want access to everything and I want it at a decent price. And there's no reason that can't be available now.

They seem to think most people know or care what Warner Bros. content is. I don't think their brand is nearly as valuable as they think it is, and I suspect they're about to find that out the hard way.

I'd venture to say most movie- and TV-watchers couldn't even name five studios, and wouldn't know or care the difference even if they could. I don't go to Netflix to watch a Warner Bros. movie, or a Sony movie - I want to watch a good movie, and I don't care who made it.

294 Reader Comments

This will accomplish nothing except to drive more people towards piracy. As previous posters stated, I am not going to pay $10 per month to each studio, for their exclusive content.

It's a similar irritation with digital distribution services with PC Games. When they all noticed Steam raking in profits, they all screamed, "Hey, we can do that too!". Thus now I "must" have several to play all the games I like.

I sort of wish that Netflix would either switch to a tiered plan perhaps charging more for a larger library of premium movies or just charge a bit more to keep some of this content. It does not sound good when there are constant stories of expiring licenses with studios. I have been a member since almost since Netflix started and don't plan to drop them anytime soon, but I would gladly pay about $20 dollars a month if they can roll up a bunch or services like Amazon,Netflix, Hulu and HBO go into one service.

This reminds me of the Steam vs. EA fight. Almost everyone blamed EA then and almost everyone is blaming WB now - and maybe they deserve it. But there's always two sides to a contract and I'm wondering if WB really refused to license its stuff to Netflix, or if it just wouldn't give Netflix exclusivity. If Netflix walked away just because it couldn't get exclusive rights, then that's just stupid "unique experience" bulls*** by Netflix. Like with the Steam/EA thing, it was as much on Steam as EA because Steam wouldn't budge on its in-game DLC policy even though EA was willing to keep its games on Steam. Either way, its the customer who gets screwed.

I dislike the entitled attitude of "you don't give it to me the way I want it, I'll go download it". I don't think that helps the argument; studios point at that and go "look, PIRACY! ARRRR!"

But the idea that studios will be able to maintain their own hubs? I...doubt that. Now if they were smart, studios could work out some interoperability where they run their services through a unified front-end but required separate subscriptions, but that would be way too clever, and require cooperation.

Yeah, I saw this same article on TheVerge and was disgusted how every reaction reflected this same attitude. Basically the posters kept saying to give it to me and cheaply or I'll torrent it. Not exactly useful.

Nonsense, it's EXTREMELY useful. Most people don't go to illegal means of acquiring something unless there is something WRONG with acquiring it legally. The fact that movies/TV shows/music have a history of being pirated tells EVERYONE that the current methods of delivery and/or it's cost is NOT inline with what the customers want. The fact that this doesn't line up with the way content providers want everything to work is THEIR problem. The fact that copyright gives them a monopoly on entertainment for more than a human lifetime is our CULTURE'S problem.

Wrong. For many people, the bar of "there's something WRONG with acquiring it legally" is pitifully low.

Doesn't matter. The studios still need to get under it.

We can talk about the morality of piracy until we're blue in the face, but the fact is, it does serve a useful function. Piracy keeps content providers honest. If piracy didn't exist, neither would services like iTunes and Netflix and Steam; that's where the pressure for the industries to adapt came from. Without piracy, the record industry would have been more than happy to tell Apple to go screw and continue selling people $18 CDs with one or two good songs, at best, on them.

The problem is that, having largely conquered piracy by building a better product (namely, Netflix), the movie studios are once again growing proud and thinking they can get a bigger piece of the pie by starting their own services and trying to get consumers to pay for them. It won't work; the consumers won't go for it. Rather, it'll simply lead to a renaissance of movie piracy. And that will happen no matter whether you or I think it's morally wrong or not.

i'm right fucking tired of this entitled attitude. i feel like a group of connected rich people have been holding the wealth of human culture on the top shelf and meting out access at overinflated prices. most of the money goes to the studios, not the people that actually make the movies.

Do you feel you own your home or do you think your architect/builder owns it? The architect designed it, all you did was pay for it. When you sell it the architect should get a big cut. It shouldn't go to you, you didn't actually design / build the home. And if you won't sell it when someone wants it, then someone can just take it.

Right?

that's a gross oversimplification. to correct your analogy:

warner brothers commissions a house. the architect gets paid a moderate fee. warner brothers then claims that not only does it own the house, it owns the design of the house as well. warner brothers threatens to sue the architect into the ground if he re-uses any of the design elements, like windows and doors. then it charges anyone who wants to use these design elements, forever.

...and you wind up with a world where it's illegal for an artist to remix his own track, because warner music group owns the master. doesn't matter if it's essentially a new work that just takes a thread from the old one and weaves it into something different. it's just like the patent wars.

next, consider how many artists have been massively taken advantage of through abusive lock-in contracts, because WMG and similar companies had a monopoly on mass distribution before the internet. the picture you start to get is one of these companies acting as feudal landlords, juicing people at every turn. then they have the balls to get up and lecture people about "supporting the artists they love." this, this.... is what i am sick of.

If the terms are disagreeable, don't sign the contract. Don't agree to a payout for your work and then bitch about how you were taken advantage of. There's enough information out there that it's hard to have much sympathy for those who don't take the time to understand what they're agreeing to.

Most software development is paid for by companies who own anything their employees create in their capacity as an employee. You can take most knowledge gained from one gig to another, but you can't take IP even if you developed it. Now it gets fuzzy defining IP, but the idea is the same, people routinely sell their creative work and their rights to it.

The story currently relating Warner Archive Instant to Netflix title availability is inaccurate. Warner Archive Instant is not involved in Netflix's business decisions and none of the titles that were pulled from Netflix yesterday are Warner Bros. owned. Further, Warner Archive Instant content is drawn solely from the Warner Bros Entertainment library and we are not streaming Universal, or MGM/ United Artists owned content on this site.

This reminds me of the Steam vs. EA fight. Almost everyone blamed EA then and almost everyone is blaming WB now - and maybe they deserve it. But there's always two sides to a contract and I'm wondering if WB really refused to license its stuff to Netflix, or if it just wouldn't give Netflix exclusivity. If Netflix walked away just because it couldn't get exclusive rights, then that's just stupid "unique experience" bulls*** by Netflix. Like with the Steam/EA thing, it was as much on Steam as EA because Steam wouldn't budge on its in-game DLC policy even though EA was willing to keep its games on Steam. Either way, its the customer who gets screwed.

I'm pretty sure it's the same and in both cases it's the WV/EA being retards. EA didn't want to sell DLC on steam. If I buy the game on Steam then I fucking expect to be able to buy their shitty DLC there too and not be forced in to registering for origin and what not just to get it.

Steam is used as it treats its customers well and we can get more or less all games on it. It's a good service. Fragmenting like EA and WB are trying to do is just going to push people towards other things. Who the hell wants to have a separate account for each ego tripped publishers that decides to start with their own store/streaming? Not to mention the utter shit clients they want you to deal with.

PS: In case it was netflix idea to focus on exclusive content then all the shit can be piled on them and EA. We want a universal service not fragmentation. Competition between universal services is fine though and should be encouraged so exclusive deals should be forbidden.

I'd like to reiterate a point that is very salient but understated in the article - WB seems to be targetting only their very old back catalog. They let you view available titles by decade on their site, and the latest decade they have is "90's", with a whopping three titles available, and only 13 for "80's". Virtually all of the content is 70's or older. I'm not sure what the reasoning here was; perhaps seniors' demand for streaming media from their era is about to become a booming market or something, but I don't think they'll be gobbling up a lot of viewership from Netflix.

i'm right fucking tired of this entitled attitude. i feel like a group of connected rich people have been holding the wealth of human culture on the top shelf and meting out access at overinflated prices. most of the money goes to the studios, not the people that actually make the movies.

Do you feel you own your home or do you think your architect/builder owns it? The architect designed it, all you did was pay for it. When you sell it the architect should get a big cut. It shouldn't go to you, you didn't actually design / build the home. And if you won't sell it when someone wants it, then someone can just take it.

Right?

that's a gross oversimplification. to correct your analogy:

warner brothers commissions a house. the architect gets paid a moderate fee. warner brothers then claims that not only does it own the house, it owns the design of the house as well. warner brothers threatens to sue the architect into the ground if he re-uses any of the design elements, like windows and doors. then it charges anyone who wants to use these design elements, forever.

...and you wind up with a world where it's illegal for an artist to remix his own track, because warner music group owns the master. doesn't matter if it's essentially a new work that just takes a thread from the old one and weaves it into something different. it's just like the patent wars.

next, consider how many artists have been massively taken advantage of through abusive lock-in contracts, because WMG and similar companies had a monopoly on mass distribution before the internet. the picture you start to get is one of these companies acting as feudal landlords, juicing people at every turn. then they have the balls to get up and lecture people about "supporting the artists they love." this, this.... is what i am sick of.

If the terms are disagreeable, don't sign the contract. Don't agree to a payout for your work and then bitch about how you were taken advantage of. There's enough information out there that it's hard to have much sympathy for those who don't take the time to understand what they're agreeing to.

i imagine pimps have a similar lecture they deliver to unruly girls in their stable.

If each of these services pull out and run their own service for even $5 per month you'll end up with a cable bill just to watch second rate movies.

Second rate? Most of it isn't even worth rating. Really bad old movies. You can't even rightly call it "classic" cause that would legitimize the stuff. You'd have to pay me to watch some of that stuff.

Netflix barely has enough decent movies as it is. TV series selection is somewhat better. To think that they can take a small fraction of that programming and make it worth more money is laughable. I barely get my money's worth out of netflix as it is.

I sort of wish that Netflix would either switch to a tiered plan perhaps charging more for a larger library of premium movies or just charge a bit more to keep some of this content. It does not sound good when there are constant stories of expiring licenses with studios. I have been a member since almost since Netflix started and don't plan to drop them anytime soon, but I would gladly pay about $20 dollars a month if they can roll up a bunch or services like Amazon,Netflix, Hulu and HBO go into one service.

Instead of a tiered service I wish Netflix could adopt a subscription / rental streaming service. For non subscribers they could offer new release rentals similar to Vudu.com, but at the prices of a RedBox rental; charge maybe $2 per rental. Then offer a subscription like they currently have which would give unlimited access to movies older than say 4 years, while also reducing the new release rentals to $1 each.

They could use the extra rental money to pay the studios and hopefully get a 1 to 1 ratio on their disc vs. streaming catalog.

You say the word "exclusive" and I hear "Fuck you, consumer." It's been a major problem in the video games industry for a long time too. A race for exclusives means consumers will pay a lot more for the same amount of content. The platform owners love them, but they're a losing proposition for everyone else (see consumers, content producers).

As many people have already said in the comments, I am not gonna subscribe to every $9.99 video service out there just to get access to every possible video. I'll do three (Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon), maybe four (looking at you Aereo), but that's it. All of those together are still less than half a regular cable bill, but that's as far as i'm gonna go.

So I Warner Bros. thinks that i'm gonna sign up for their crap service just to watch Bugs Bunny reruns, then they're smoking mucho peyote.

Now, if HBO decided to do a standalone HBO Go for say, $10 a month, then I might have to drop Amazon (it's the one I use least of the three I have).

"I'd venture to say most movie- and TV-watchers couldn't even name five studios, and wouldn't know or care the difference even if they could"

Um, lets see... Lions Gate, Universal, Paramount, Orion, Warner Bros, Funimation, Dreamworks, Pixar, Disney. And I named those off the top of my head, mostly because they either make some of my favorite movies, or make memorable animations.

Now being able to tell the difference? Got me there, although I can usually tell the difference between Dreamworks and Pixar.

Wrong. You don't pay to be a member of steam: you pay for the content. Likewise with Origin. These are games, likely to be played over and over again; unlike movies and series which are likely to be watched once, and perhaps again at some future date.

The problem is that WB, like many movie and music labels, "doesn't get it". People are prepared to pay good money for an all-you-can-eat, but by trying to make the all-you-can-eat to be a charge from every label individually, it no longer becomes all-you-can-eat and instead becomes "f-ck you, pay me". I have netflix because the cost fits my budget: cheaper than Sky movies, on it's own cheaper than renting movies once a month, and overall value for money; sure I needed to upgrade my broadband but I am happy to pay the premium on broadband connection to get it reliably. It's the model that works.

Now here's the choice. I don't live in the US, in fact I live in an area that, while piracy is frowned on, is extremely hard to prosecute for the receiver (as well as some billions of the world's population). So the question becomes this: do you prefer to make consistent money while paying nothing for the streaming capabilities and proven security already in netflix, or do you want to make nothing? Because if you have no ethical problem screwing me over, then I have no ethical problem cutting you out of the equation...

Wrong. You don't pay to be a member of steam: you pay for the content. Likewise with Origin. These are games, likely to be played over and over again; unlike movies and series which are likely to be watched once, and perhaps again at some future date.

The problem is that WB, like many movie and music labels, "doesn't get it". People are prepared to pay good money for an all-you-can-eat, but by trying to make the all-you-can-eat to be a charge from every label individually, it no longer becomes all-you-can-eat and instead becomes "f-ck you, pay me". I have netflix because the cost fits my budget: cheaper than Sky movies, on it's own cheaper than renting movies once a month, and overall value for money; sure I needed to upgrade my broadband but I am happy to pay the premium on broadband connection to get it reliably. It's the model that works.

Now here's the choice. I don't live in the US, in fact I live in an area that, while copyright violations are frowned on, is extremely hard to prosecute for the receiver (as well as some billions of the world's population). So the question becomes this: do you prefer to make consistent money while paying nothing for the streaming capabilities and proven security already in netflix, or do you want to make nothing? Because if you have no ethical problem screwing me over, then I have no ethical problem cutting you out of the equation...

The analogy relates to the content exclusivity for each service and, to a lesser extent as Origin evolves (and despite a lot of EA hatred), popularity. Netflix is a multi-studio aggregator whereas WB Archive Instant will be WB exclusive. Steam is a multi-publisher aggregator whereas Origin, until recently when it added Ubisoft titles, was primarily EA exclusive.

Steam is more popular than Origin as a content provider just as Netflix will be more popular than any studio-exclusive streaming service and that will continue as long as Steam's and Netflix's offerings remain broader than the competition's (discounting decisions like the Netflix price hike). Granted, companies that come in on the ground floor of an emerging market as Netflix and Valve did are going to have an advantage over any later entrants to those markets.

Like with the Steam/EA thing, it was as much on Steam as EA because Steam wouldn't budge on its in-game DLC policy even though EA was willing to keep its games on Steam. Either way, its the customer who gets screwed.

And I fully agree with Steam's stand from a consumer standpoint, even though it was clearly to and for the benefit of Valve.

In May 2015 when I find and watch a Warner Bros title on Netflix, I'll revisit this article and laugh at the WB guy who approved this crazy idea and left the company 'for personal reasons' in May 2014.

I really wish there was a Netflix equivalent for racing events. I would pay monthly to get F1, Rally, and Le Mans events streamed on my TV without commercial breaks. Just as long as the rates were reasonable. I'm sure plenty would do the same for other sporting events. I'm done with cable, it never gave me what I wanted.

In May 2015 when I find and watch a Warner Bros title on Netflix, I'll revisit this article and laugh at the WB guy who approved this crazy idea and left the company 'for personal reasons' in May 2014.

Took the words out of my mouth here. Warner is just reinventing ways to shoot themselves in the foot. They don't know how good they have it as their "planned service" is doomed to utter failure. I will be happy to stand next to you laughing maniacally at then when they finally figure it out.

i'm right fucking tired of this entitled attitude. i feel like a group of connected rich people have been holding the wealth of human culture on the top shelf and meting out access at overinflated prices. most of the money goes to the studios, not the people that actually make the movies.

Do you feel you own your home or do you think your architect/builder owns it? The architect designed it, all you did was pay for it. When you sell it the architect should get a big cut. It shouldn't go to you, you didn't actually design / build the home. And if you won't sell it when someone wants it, then someone can just take it.

Right?

that's a gross oversimplification. to correct your analogy:

warner brothers commissions a house. the architect gets paid a moderate fee. warner brothers then claims that not only does it own the house, it owns the design of the house as well. warner brothers threatens to sue the architect into the ground if he re-uses any of the design elements, like windows and doors. then it charges anyone who wants to use these design elements, forever.

...and you wind up with a world where it's illegal for an artist to remix his own track, because warner music group owns the master. doesn't matter if it's essentially a new work that just takes a thread from the old one and weaves it into something different. it's just like the patent wars.

next, consider how many artists have been massively taken advantage of through abusive lock-in contracts, because WMG and similar companies had a monopoly on mass distribution before the internet. the picture you start to get is one of these companies acting as feudal landlords, juicing people at every turn. then they have the balls to get up and lecture people about "supporting the artists they love." this, this.... is what i am sick of.

If the terms are disagreeable, don't sign the contract. Don't agree to a payout for your work and then bitch about how you were taken advantage of. There's enough information out there that it's hard to have much sympathy for those who don't take the time to understand what they're agreeing to.

i imagine pimps have a similar lecture they deliver to unruly girls in their stable.

And there it goes. Legitimate movie streaming begins its collapse under the hubris of the major studios. I think this new direction from Netflix is nothing more than them hedging their bets against this exact inevitability, and not some sort of master plan.

Get it through your heads, WB. I am under no circumstances going to pay you MORE per month for less. When I think of good films, I think of directors, actors, even screen writers. I certainly don't think "Hey, that WB sure puts out some fine movies."

As for you, Netflix, simply because you managed to pull out some decent original content doesn't mean that your core audience aren't consumers looking for a (mostly) one-stop shop for their movie watching. I have been patiently handing you money month after month waiting for you to grow, maybe add some premium PPV content if you had to, and all I've seen are my favorite movies and TV series (bring back Peep Show, you jerks. I wasn't done!) disappear.

I honestly am getting kind of tired of these stories: "Starz leaving Netflix, bad for Netflix!", "Disney signs exclusive deal with Netflix! Good for Netflix!", "Amazon signs deal with Paramount. Bad for Netflix."

Who honestly signs on to Netflix expecting the exact movie they want to be on the service? Netflix is good for a couple of reasons: A) TV Shows that you like and also the one's you didn't know existed, B) Indie films and content that comes out of Europe and Asia, and C) watching that movie that you were mildly interested in seeing when it was in the theaters but it didn't occupy enough brainspace to hold on to for that long and oh look it's on Netflix now so why don't I watch it.

Who honestly buys a car and expects it to work all the time? The Honda Accord is good for a couple of reasons: A) if you want to drive to school; B) if you want to drive to work; C) if you want to drive to the store. That's it! Why would you ever expect that thing you paid for to do anything more than just those three things I think are important?

It's terribly sad that you've set your standards so low and are satisfied with the status quo. We look at it differently - why should I settle for having to wait six months for a movie to come out on Netflix, when I would be willing to pay for it today?

You can pay for it today. If you're willing to put your money where your mouth is you can see it in a theater, you can buy it on Blu-Ray, you can purchase it on iTunes or pay to have it on Amazon's streaming service. Or you can wait. You can have it fast or you can have it cheap, those are your choices. To believe that you should be able to have both flies in the face of the reality of pretty much every business in existence. People pay for quick and convenient all the time, why shouldn't you have to as well?

I can pay for it today, ONLY in the precise time and manner of their choosing.

- I can't typically see movies in theaters.- I am not willing to pay $100/month for cable PLUS an additional $7 every time I want to see a new release.- I would prefer not to have to wait two months for physical media to become available in stores, and when they do, I'm typically not willing to pay $20-$30 to buy it.- For the record, I don't illegally download IP and probably never will.

Here's what I DO want (specific to movies, but can be modified to adapt to TV shows as well):

- I want to pay $X, where $X is I think a very reasonable figure - more than $2, less than $25 - to stream it in my home, the same day it releases in theaters.

It would cannibalize theater profits, as most people's home setup provides a better experience at this point (there are exceptions, but not enough to sustain multiplexes).

I contend that there is a point on the supply/demand curve of this service at which they could easily outstrip their current take (and improve their public perception at the same time). All they need is the courage to try it; for six months; for three months; even for just one film.

I contend that there is a point on the supply/demand curve of this service at which they could easily outstrip their current take (and improve their public perception at the same time). All they need is the courage to try it; for six months; for three months; even for just one film.

For the studios, sure, but theaters typically run on razor thin margins. Even a small (say 20%) drop in their attendance and they would probably collapse. The studios aren't ready to pull the rug out yet, because it would only give more power to the internet services like Netflix and Amazon that they are scared shitless of (for good reason). They have the theaters in an abusive relationship where they call all the shots.